« ECHR upholds ongoing defamation liability for internet | Main | Sentences for sale »
OK! magazine fakes front cover photo
By Steven | March 12, 2009
More grist for those worried about digital manipulation. OK! has a front page photo of Cheryl Cole with her arm around Victoria Beckham (click on the magnifying glass at bottom right for the whole photo) to illustrate its story about the two making up. But it’s a montage. They weren’t even at the same event. Victoria’s dress has also been changed from black to red. Another sliver of credibility lost to the media.
Topics: Media ethics | 52 Comments »
52 Responses to “OK! magazine fakes front cover photo”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:31 am
“Another sliver of credibility lost to the media.”
OK Magazine qualifies as “media” in the relevant news-bearing sense? Its readers expect accuracy and truth? It has any credibility to lose? Replies on the back of post card to S. Price, Wellington.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:48 am
…and copy in NZ’s Press Council, which also thinks that women’s mags shouldn’t be misleading readers on their covers: http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_ruling.asp?casenumber=1060
Isn’t there something about the undisclosed digital manipulation of photographs – even in a celebrity mag like OK! – that starts to undermine our trust in media photos in general?
March 12th, 2009 at 10:58 am
One might also note that the ‘pregnancy exclusive’ photo on the same cover has serious light-direction issues.
It is terrible – ethically and technically – but I get the impression it’s not really an outlier in terms of what goes on.
P.S. http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com
March 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Why is this interesting?
a) this is a gossip rag
b) what isn’t photoshopped in some way these days? and how is this different from age old editing tricks employed by every documentary maker since Adam was a cowboy?
c) ok – they didn’t actually take this photo but as far as I can tell from your link the underlying story is true
d) readers are not naive and are capable of punishing publications for misleading them. Reputation is a quality that publishers can choose to value and preserve if they want to reach certain audiences.
So what’s the problem?
Isn’t there something about the undisclosed digital manipulation of photographs – even in a celebrity mag like OK! – that starts to undermine our trust in media photos in general?
Perhaps. But to the extent you’re right, that creates a market opportunity for someone, anyone, heck OK Magazine could, to come in with a new publication with an explicit policy not to manipulate. That, I believe, is the niche filled (yes, imperfectly) by the respected media, BBC, NZ Herald, Dom Post, and so on. To the extent you’re wrong, there is no issue and no opportunity. Either way, writing rules that force everyone to conform to your (dis)taste for Photoshop adds nothing and could take plenty, at least from people out there who want (or don’t mind) the illusion. If people lose faith in media and they care about trusting the media, then that just creates an opportunity for reputable media.
Reputation is a commodity that if people demand then can and will be profitably supplied. Like everything else.
Lyndon, it may be terribly unethical according to some standards. Possibly not the readers of OK Magazine. To the extent it is, OK loses business. So what’s the problem?
March 12th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
The problem: this is an example of the media distorting reality. It’s a small example, but the numbers are burgeoning, and there are plenty of more serious ones. You think this is just a problem of my taste? I think it’s a fundamental ethical problem – and I’m supported in that by almost every ethical code that’s ever been written.
Your argument, anyway, is inconsistent. Which is it to be? Everyone does it? Or the “respected media” don’t, and the market will cause them to succeed if the public share my “distaste”?
Actually, the respected media do manipulate images occasionally too (remember Stephen Fleming’s flying bail, shifted to fit in the photo?), and I’m even more critical of them. How often do they do it? Don’t know.
I’m heartened by your confidence that the public will be able to work out which media are peddling distorted images and which aren’t, and adjust their loyalties accordingly. But, um, how exactly? I’m afraid that, as often is the case, media markets aren’t blessed with the sort of perfectly informed consumers that allows them to spit out the sorts of optimum solutions that you predict.
Yes, there are responsible organisations who care more about photographic fidelity, and yes, consumers who care about that will gravitate toward them. And that’s a good thing. But my point is that every time this happens, there’s a sense in which public trust in photographic images as a whole is diminished, and that has a negative effect on the project of journalism, including those who are doing it blamelessly.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:00 am
I tend to agree with you, Steven. But what about when a politician distorts reality by changing their appearance using deceptive methods? Helen Clark springs to mind. Should we therefore mistrust/distrust what she says and does?
June 5th, 2020 at 5:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
June 5th, 2020 at 8:31 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
July 5th, 2020 at 6:18 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
July 9th, 2020 at 10:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 83538 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
July 18th, 2020 at 12:05 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
July 29th, 2020 at 4:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
August 7th, 2020 at 1:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
August 23rd, 2020 at 11:40 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 3:28 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 4:16 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 1:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
September 5th, 2020 at 12:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
September 8th, 2020 at 10:49 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
September 21st, 2020 at 10:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
September 23rd, 2020 at 4:57 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
September 25th, 2020 at 3:59 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 30804 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
September 26th, 2020 at 6:41 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
October 11th, 2020 at 12:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 67351 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
October 30th, 2020 at 5:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
November 5th, 2020 at 4:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
November 8th, 2020 at 1:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
November 12th, 2020 at 3:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
November 16th, 2020 at 1:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
November 17th, 2020 at 2:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 5:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 17008 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
November 28th, 2020 at 11:08 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
December 13th, 2020 at 12:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
December 24th, 2020 at 1:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
January 7th, 2021 at 3:15 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
February 4th, 2021 at 8:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
February 8th, 2021 at 8:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
February 17th, 2021 at 5:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
April 1st, 2021 at 2:21 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
April 8th, 2021 at 6:43 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
May 13th, 2021 at 6:13 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 4939 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
May 20th, 2021 at 9:43 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
May 22nd, 2021 at 2:32 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
May 26th, 2021 at 10:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
June 6th, 2021 at 3:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 70965 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
June 15th, 2021 at 3:27 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 6:32 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 11:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 11:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
July 7th, 2021 at 11:41 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
August 12th, 2021 at 4:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 43407 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]
October 2nd, 2021 at 1:58 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=228 […]